The Change123 one doesn't illustrate the image. It's just a quotation. It's also not an example, since he's not hitting her because he's afraid of her, not because of a personal moral. It's written down in the example list as Playing with a Trope, which is correct, but it doesn't make for a good image.
The Astérix one shows something like half the trope, though the most important part. Is it famous enough to assume people know that Obelix will usually sock any (male) Romans into the air? Personally that's the first thing that comes to mind when I hear about the comic.
I think that suggestion illustrates a problem with illustrating the trope. It's about not doing something.
However, she does look sheepish enough that would inspire someone to smack her on the head, so it's not just a text example.
The Asterix one can be understood without needing to read the text: a female soldier orders two males to stop, and one of them passes by grabing her and taking her at his side, as if she was a rod or a sack. Meaning, he has the strength to pass, but without actually being violent with the female.
So far I like the Asterix one best. I can tell what's going on in the pic without needing to read it, which in my mind, is the sign of a good pic. It's especially clear with the link to them beating up a horde of Romans, clearly they have no compunctions about hitting people in general, just women.
That actually looks better than I thought it would. You can even skip the text in the second panel, and it still makes sense, since you don't need to know why he's hitting him, just that he's okay with hitting a guy. Thus, it shows both willingness to hit a guy, and unwillingness to hit a girl.